GENERAL37806

• Permit No: M2001001
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 8/21/2003
• Doc Name: Plans Regarding Courts Decision
• From: James Preston
• To: AGO
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

SEP-11-2003 11:07 FROM-DOL NATURAL RESOURCES 3038663558 T-324 P.002/002 F-258
.. ~._..
,Thomas Roan - Re: Plans regarding [he rt's gecrsion "'~""' • ~~ ~ ' """ "''Page 1"
From: "James E. Preston" ~[e-mail]
To: "Mary Elizabeth Geiger <[e-mail], "'Thomas Roan'" <[e-mail]>
pate: g/21 /03 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: Plans regarding the Court's decision
Tom, ThanK you for the update:
In response to M.~'s query I would like to note a few things:
(1) In the course of my case with Hazen Brown down here in Montezuma
County, a number of facts nave come forwarq which I believe compel the
taKin9 of new evidence.
(a) Four States is no longer cleaning and discharging the water
directly into the polores River; they are confining i[ to the pit and trying
a new technology. However, the heavy metals are leaching into the alluvial
aquifer causing more pollution than if they were settling them and
discharging them.
(b) Four States is NOT in complianr:e with State and Federal flood plan
Taws and regulations; the MLRB is required to clear the project with the
State Department of Flood Control (which the MLRB has not done) (this was
one of the issues which the hearing examiner exclutleq from the first
hearing). We have nod extensive discussions with Larry Lange (State Flood
Control) and John Loo (FEMA) which are on vigeo tape which conclusively show
that the State anq Federal Flooq authorities have found the gravel pit to be
illegal as an obstruction to she floagplain (i.e. a damn across the
floodplain). If nothing else, this evidence comes ~n as rebuttal to pMG's
advocates for Four States.
(2) Whether we have new evigence or not, all of the Plaintiffs' objections
to pe addressed at the main hearing in Denver were qed to all of the other
objectors. Since there is nq record, I [hink all of the initial objectors
must be iven a chance to appear and present their objections all over
again. We incorporated their objections, by reference, in our issues
presented at the main nearing.
(3) Also, we have the issue of subpoenas. It might save another appeal if
the hearing on subpoenas was conducted at the pre-hearing conference ins[ead
of waiting un[il [he qay of the main nearing. Tom, wim all due respects,
if the Board is going to oppose us on subpoenas again, I believe we have
recourse to the Court to have the Court issue the subpoenas.
(4) Tom, your last message about the difference petween a "hearing" and a
"conference" may pe just one of semantics. The APA tlefines a hearing as
anything resulting in an order. Since the "conference" results in a
pre-nearing "order'" i[ is also a "hearing."
Jlm
James E. Preston
Attorney at Law
Preston 8 Associates
P. O. Box 1416